James Farrar schrieb:
On 23/02/2008, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Andrew Gray schrieb:
On 22/02/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/02/2008, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly don't see how you can compare these cases. One is an editorial decision of no real significance which we can compromise on to be polite with no net cost to the quality of the finished product;
A compromise is when each side gets some, but not all, of what it wants.
As here. They get less prominent use of the pictures - and, more importantly, an indication that we are willing to think about what we're doing rather than just be aggressive Because We Can - and we, er, still have an encyclopaedic article just a slightly different-looking one! Win-win.
<snip/>
Thank you Andrew for your effort. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of those zealots is willing to compromise. Appeasing the no-censorship fundamentalists looks like mission impossible.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I agree. I wrote my reply in order to point to the fact, that those "no censorship at all costs" proponents are actually imitating those "remove all Muhammad images" proponents in their zealousness and fundamentalism.
br